Appeal No. 2007-0752 Page 11
Application No. 09/957,109
deform to a W-shaped cross section in response to lateral pressure from the
thighs of the wearer. Hines, page 3. While, as the examiner points out, Hines
may teach a napkin that consists of a number of “lines of weakness” 30 and 34,
one cannot escape the fact that these “lines of weakness” 30 and 34 are
disclosed in Hines to cause the napkin to deform to a W-shaped cross section in
response to lateral pressure from the thighs of the wearer, as illustrated in Hines,
figure 5 reproduced below.
We do not find, and the examiner has not identified, a teaching in Hines of
a pantiliner that may be adjusted in size depending on panty size, by folding said
pantiliner along at least one embossed fold line to allow the periphery side areas
of the pantiliner to be positioned under a panty prior to, and while in use as
required by appellants’ claimed invention. Accordingly, Hines fails to make up for
the deficiencies in Unger.
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993), citation omitted. The test
of obviousness is “whether the teachings of the prior art, taken as a whole, would
have made obvious the claimed invention.” In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18
USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991). For the foregoing reasons, it is our
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013